Each of your arguments are beside the point. It's the needs of the consumer that will drive the success or failure of a software application, whether it's free or not. There's no end to the kinds of things people want to be able to do, and each successive upgrade generates more ideas, and more ways to make the software do more than it did previously. So, to some extent, consumers are driving the poor quality of commercial software. Commercial developers are simply responding to what consumers want, and to some extent, what they're willing to put up with. Does this mean that buggy software should be the accepted norm? No. But consumers have to make a choice...that can have what they want *now*, under the premise that it will be reasonably functional (but not bug free), or they can wait just to the left of forever until every possible hardware/software configuration has been tested, and it has been determined that the application is 100% bulletproof. Of course, by then, it will be obsolete anyway. I'm willing to bet that the majority of consumers would rather pay $99, $129, or whatever for the next upgrade to their proprietary software, so that they can have the newest features *now*, rather than wait for the same feature to amble its way into a free software package - IF it even gets there.
BUT the broad categorization of 'Christians are closed minded, bigotted, hypocrits.' Is tolerated and encouraged in many places. I think the solution is relatively simple, but will be relatively hard to come by. Within large segments of the *Christian* community, the same kind of bigotry is tolerated and encouraged. How many times to people have to be warned of the "dangers" of homosexuals, and what a "threat" they are to "American Family Values"? And it doesn't stop at simply extoling these pearls of wisdom - this sentiment is often used to catalyze religiously-based political influence. There's a simple, yet applicable saying: "What goes around, comes around." If mainstream Christian groups would see to it to stop attacking people that "diagree" with their religious ideas, the WMC would start to see less of the same behavior toward them. One thing I find particularly vexing...a recent survey revealed that 98% of American's "Believe in God." Whether this qualfies them as "Christian" or some other faith, is unclear. In addition, about half of these believers consider themselves "born-again." If half the population are born-again believers in God, and the vast majority simply believers, why in HELL is the social fabric of this country in such disarray? I almost think that this is an example of hypocrisy at its finest.
Based on your description, it's not the RATING that's a problem - it's the unscrupulous assholes that engage in the kinds of practices you describe (page-jacking). Indicting the entire web community for the actions of a few malcontents is a typical government response. If page-jacking is a problem, make THAT illegal. If your kids are coming across "harmful" material, wouldn't be better to figure out HOW this is happening, rather than using the equivalent of a pneumatic pile driver to hammer a nail?
I consider myself a sophisticated internet user, and I have chosen NOT to look at pornographic material. What's interesting is that AVOIDING it hasn't been a problem AT ALL. It doesn't take a whole lot of effort or intelligence - just adhering to a few simple rules, really. These are rules that any kid can follow, and if they don't, it's not an internet problem, it's a discipline problem.
Earthlink does something similar, although I think it's a little more cryptic - but certainly not too cryptic to reveal the physical location of the dialup connection. I guess there are more idiots out there than we realize.
One of the reasons the CPU ID was such a hassle for Intel was that Intel made a complete fool of itself by asserting that the CPU ID feature could be easily controlled by the user. This article, however, makes no mention of a CPU ID, but rather, a specialized chip for encryption/decryption and the handle of digital signatures. It doesn't sound like the same issue, but then again, the comments from IBM could be nothing more than a carefully-constructed PR piece.
That having been said, there is at least one issue - if the encryption/decryption is handled in firmware, will it mandate a limited key length? While I don't want to sound like a whacko conspiracy theorist, having an ability for limited encryption built in to a system targeted at the mass market, could give the government most of the control it needs over encrypted material.
It's WASTE it or lose it. You'd think by now a bunch of self-important, ethically-challenged politicians could come with a better way to handle funding. But I guess as long as everyone gets their cut, there's no reason to push for change. And in the end, it's the taxpayers who get screwed...over and over and over.
I might consider voting for him, but unfortunately, the Republican party in general spends FAR too much time creating ways to infringe on personal privacy, and FAR too much money on corporate welfare. I can't help but wonder if this is merely a political gesture - the election is, after all, next year.
I wonder if the Dr. Charles Scriber (the principal) would feel the same way about the new ID policy if he were required to wear a badge bearing the same information. And why not? Shouldn't students be assured that no strange adults are walking around their school?
To make matters worse, this guy is just plain arrogant: "Dr. Charles Scriber is principal of the school. Although he met with Washington and his parents, he has ignored a written complaint from Winchel and her mother. He has not granted a written request for an appointment to discuss her concerns. I think he's forgotten who pays his damn salary.
To reiterate the catch-all: "Causing danger to data processing systems." How does one define "danger"? Does it mean "causing unexpected bahavior, interruption of use, or corruption of documents"? If so, then Microsoft distributes the biggest virus on the planet - it's called WINDOWS. And you even have to pay for it!
35 messages in a week is next to NOTHING. My suspicion is that most of the students are probably unfamiliar with the technology and how to use it effectively.
The University of Indiana cut a "deal" with Microsoft for $6 MILLION. With Linux, there's no deal, and even better, no COST. I don't understand how "cash-strapped" university computing departments can justify this logic: "We don't have the money, so we're giving Microsoft $6 million for something we could have gotten for free."
When real people are actually REAL, I have no problem with interaction. It's all the phoniness, the posturing, the cheating, the lying, etc., that tend to skew my emphasis toward other endeavors. Other than that, I eat well, get plenty of exercise, limit my consumption of pop, use incandescent lights, and well, as for girlfriends, it's all a matter of priorities.
I didn't read the entire article, and I had to stop after the second page (I'll read it all later). One of the biggest problems is saw were some VERY sad and mistaken impressions about what university "life" is all about. What's the big deal about campus life? So you go get hammered night after night, and end up in bed with some chick you've never met, and would probably never want to meet again. Is this what I'd be missing???? Boo-frickin'-hoo! And let's see...interacting with the faculty - that would consist of what...sitting in an auditorium with 450 other students, listening to a droll, monotone voice emanating somewhere from the front, and trying to tie what's being said with some hastily compiled overheads??? Oh man! I can feel the emptiness now!
Having spent some time in a college dorm, there were both pros and cons. On the positive side, there actually were *some* students that were there to learn, and I enjoyed their candor. On the other hand, far too many of them were there to "have a good time." And indeed, whatever their perverted idea of a "good time" was, they did it.
While I don't completely discount the validity of getting an education *at* a university, things will have to change quite a bit before I can honestly say I've missed out on something.
I didn't read the entire article, and I had to stop after the second page (I'll read it all later). One of the biggest problems is saw were some VERY sad and mistaken impressions about what university "life" is all about. What's the big deal about campus life? So you go get hammered night after night, and end up in bed with some chick you've never met, and would probably never want to meet again. Is this what I'd be missing???? Boo-frickin'-hoo! And let's see...interacting with the faculty - that would consist of what...sitting in an auditorium with 450 other students, listening to a droll, monotone voice emanating somewhere from the front, and trying to tie what's being said with some hastily compiled overheads??? Oh man! I can feel the emptiness now! Having spent some time in a college dorm, there were both pros and cons. On the positive side, there actually were *some* students that were there to learn, and I enjoyed their candor. On the other hand, far too many of them were there to "have a good time." And indeed, whatever their perverted idea of a "good time" was, they did it. While I don't completely discount the validity of getting an education *at* a university, things will have to change quite a bit before I can honestly say I've missed out on something.
If someone is currently carrying around four different pieces of gear to stay "connected," they'll be TOTALLY out of commission if, using an integrated unit like the PdQ, it gets lost, stolen, or damaged. If one were to lose access to one of the four separate pieces of gear, at least they could fall back on the others. A single unit means a single point of failure...and if it fails, it could fail in a big way.
If I'm not mistaken, the agreement between Rob et al, and Andover was such that it gives him control over the content - even if Andover is acquired by a new owner. This ought to be interesting.
I think the blasse attitudes about the CPU ID is exactly the kind of complacency that Intel and others (including the government) are counting on. As we've seen in the past (with the social security number, for example), any time an identifying "key" is established, capable of tying a person to information about them, has a tendency to expand beyond its original intent. We now have in the works, proposals to establish a DNA database (supported by the likes of New York City's Mayor Giuliani), a national photo database (a la Image Data and the NSA), and god knows what else. In my opinion, ANY time a uniquwly identifying key is proposed, especially for use in tracking information about PEOPLE, there better be a damned good reason for it.
Do you honestly think that artists are going to STOP signing with major companies like Sony because of this? I doubt it. If consumers stop blindly handing their money to Sony and company, this kind of leverage will fall by the wayside, presenting ample opportunity for someone else to start calling the shots (the artists themselves, for example).
Seriously - if web sites are rated on content, and since the Bible contains all manner of violence, sexual misbehavior and the like, it will undoubtedly be filtered. Unless of course, these templates allow for exceptions, like "Filter out all gratuitous violence, all sex, and anything deemed immoral. EXCEPTION: anything associated with Christianity or the Bible."
While not all countries are bound by the equivalent of the First Amendment, I find it difficult to believe that this won't somehow undermine this protection. The U.S. Supreme Court has rendered some very significant decisions, voter approval notwithstanding. And that's what makes it so valuable - it was designed to factor out the "will of the majority." It will be most interesting to see first, how far this effort actually goes, and seocnd, what happens when it is contested on constitutional grounds.
If record companies are ripping off the artists, it's OK for you to rip off the record companies (and by extension, the artists), right? If the price of a CD is more than you'd like to pay, this somehow justifies theft, right?
As long as people continue to pay the record companies in ANY form, they'll continue right on doing what they've done for decades. If you steal the music, then YOU'RE just as guilty of hurting the artists as the record companies. Just don't BUY it. This is the only way that the market will be allowed to correct this problem. What could be easier than NOT giving someone your money?
Bummer - Apple's web site does list the availability though - most of them are 30 days, while a couple of models are 60 days. Apple has a history of releasing products in a way that created perpetual shortages - which accomplished nothing but pissing a lot of people off. I'd rather wait 30 days while they ramp up production so that I could order a G4 with a high probability that it won't take just to the left of forever to get it.
As long as companies continue to prostitute personal information that belongs to their customers (to the monetary benefit of the company, no less), I have absolutely *NO* problem with making the purchase information of companies public. If anything, it evens the playing field.
Slashdot Mirror
Each of your arguments are beside the point. It's the needs of the consumer that will drive the success or failure of a software application, whether it's free or not. There's no end to the kinds of things people want to be able to do, and each successive upgrade generates more ideas, and more ways to make the software do more than it did previously. So, to some extent, consumers are driving the poor quality of commercial software. Commercial developers are simply responding to what consumers want, and to some extent, what they're willing to put up with. Does this mean that buggy software should be the accepted norm? No. But consumers have to make a choice...that can have what they want *now*, under the premise that it will be reasonably functional (but not bug free), or they can wait just to the left of forever until every possible hardware/software configuration has been tested, and it has been determined that the application is 100% bulletproof. Of course, by then, it will be obsolete anyway. I'm willing to bet that the majority of consumers would rather pay $99, $129, or whatever for the next upgrade to their proprietary software, so that they can have the newest features *now*, rather than wait for the same feature to amble its way into a free software package - IF it even gets there.
BUT the broad categorization of 'Christians are closed minded, bigotted, hypocrits.' Is tolerated and encouraged in many places. I think the solution is relatively simple, but will be relatively hard to come by. Within large segments of the *Christian* community, the same kind of bigotry is tolerated and encouraged. How many times to people have to be warned of the "dangers" of homosexuals, and what a "threat" they are to "American Family Values"? And it doesn't stop at simply extoling these pearls of wisdom - this sentiment is often used to catalyze religiously-based political influence. There's a simple, yet applicable saying: "What goes around, comes around." If mainstream Christian groups would see to it to stop attacking people that "diagree" with their religious ideas, the WMC would start to see less of the same behavior toward them. One thing I find particularly vexing...a recent survey revealed that 98% of American's "Believe in God." Whether this qualfies them as "Christian" or some other faith, is unclear. In addition, about half of these believers consider themselves "born-again." If half the population are born-again believers in God, and the vast majority simply believers, why in HELL is the social fabric of this country in such disarray? I almost think that this is an example of hypocrisy at its finest.
I consider myself a sophisticated internet user, and I have chosen NOT to look at pornographic material. What's interesting is that AVOIDING it hasn't been a problem AT ALL. It doesn't take a whole lot of effort or intelligence - just adhering to a few simple rules, really. These are rules that any kid can follow, and if they don't, it's not an internet problem, it's a discipline problem.
Earthlink does something similar, although I think it's a little more cryptic - but certainly not too cryptic to reveal the physical location of the dialup connection. I guess there are more idiots out there than we realize.
That having been said, there is at least one issue - if the encryption/decryption is handled in firmware, will it mandate a limited key length? While I don't want to sound like a whacko conspiracy theorist, having an ability for limited encryption built in to a system targeted at the mass market, could give the government most of the control it needs over encrypted material.
The latter isn't just "luck." There's a much bigger lesson here, and the parents of these kids have failed miserably at teaching it: SELF-DISIPLINE.
It's WASTE it or lose it. You'd think by now a bunch of self-important, ethically-challenged politicians could come with a better way to handle funding. But I guess as long as everyone gets their cut, there's no reason to push for change. And in the end, it's the taxpayers who get screwed...over and over and over.
I might consider voting for him, but unfortunately, the Republican party in general spends FAR too much time creating ways to infringe on personal privacy, and FAR too much money on corporate welfare. I can't help but wonder if this is merely a political gesture - the election is, after all, next year.
To make matters worse, this guy is just plain arrogant: "Dr. Charles Scriber is principal of the school. Although he met with Washington and his parents, he has ignored a written complaint from Winchel and her mother. He has not granted a written request for an appointment to discuss her concerns. I think he's forgotten who pays his damn salary.
To reiterate the catch-all: "Causing danger to data processing systems." How does one define "danger"? Does it mean "causing unexpected bahavior, interruption of use, or corruption of documents"? If so, then Microsoft distributes the biggest virus on the planet - it's called WINDOWS. And you even have to pay for it!
35 messages in a week is next to NOTHING. My suspicion is that most of the students are probably unfamiliar with the technology and how to use it effectively.
The University of Indiana cut a "deal" with Microsoft for $6 MILLION. With Linux, there's no deal, and even better, no COST. I don't understand how "cash-strapped" university computing departments can justify this logic: "We don't have the money, so we're giving Microsoft $6 million for something we could have gotten for free."
When real people are actually REAL, I have no problem with interaction. It's all the phoniness, the posturing, the cheating, the lying, etc., that tend to skew my emphasis toward other endeavors. Other than that, I eat well, get plenty of exercise, limit my consumption of pop, use incandescent lights, and well, as for girlfriends, it's all a matter of priorities.
I didn't read the entire article, and I had to stop after the second page (I'll read it all later). One of the biggest problems is saw were some VERY sad and mistaken impressions about what university "life" is all about. What's the big deal about campus life? So you go get hammered night after night, and end up in bed with some chick you've never met, and would probably never want to meet again. Is this what I'd be missing???? Boo-frickin'-hoo! And let's see...interacting with the faculty - that would consist of what...sitting in an auditorium with 450 other students, listening to a droll, monotone voice emanating somewhere from the front, and trying to tie what's being said with some hastily compiled overheads??? Oh man! I can feel the emptiness now!
Having spent some time in a college dorm, there were both pros and cons. On the positive side, there actually were *some* students that were there to learn, and I enjoyed their candor. On the other hand, far too many of them were there to "have a good time." And indeed, whatever their perverted idea of a "good time" was, they did it.
While I don't completely discount the validity of getting an education *at* a university, things will have to change quite a bit before I can honestly say I've missed out on something.
I didn't read the entire article, and I had to stop after the second page (I'll read it all later). One of the biggest problems is saw were some VERY sad and mistaken impressions about what university "life" is all about. What's the big deal about campus life? So you go get hammered night after night, and end up in bed with some chick you've never met, and would probably never want to meet again. Is this what I'd be missing???? Boo-frickin'-hoo! And let's see...interacting with the faculty - that would consist of what...sitting in an auditorium with 450 other students, listening to a droll, monotone voice emanating somewhere from the front, and trying to tie what's being said with some hastily compiled overheads??? Oh man! I can feel the emptiness now! Having spent some time in a college dorm, there were both pros and cons. On the positive side, there actually were *some* students that were there to learn, and I enjoyed their candor. On the other hand, far too many of them were there to "have a good time." And indeed, whatever their perverted idea of a "good time" was, they did it. While I don't completely discount the validity of getting an education *at* a university, things will have to change quite a bit before I can honestly say I've missed out on something.
If someone is currently carrying around four different pieces of gear to stay "connected," they'll be TOTALLY out of commission if, using an integrated unit like the PdQ, it gets lost, stolen, or damaged. If one were to lose access to one of the four separate pieces of gear, at least they could fall back on the others. A single unit means a single point of failure...and if it fails, it could fail in a big way.
If I'm not mistaken, the agreement between Rob et al, and Andover was such that it gives him control over the content - even if Andover is acquired by a new owner. This ought to be interesting.
I think the blasse attitudes about the CPU ID is exactly the kind of complacency that Intel and others (including the government) are counting on. As we've seen in the past (with the social security number, for example), any time an identifying "key" is established, capable of tying a person to information about them, has a tendency to expand beyond its original intent. We now have in the works, proposals to establish a DNA database (supported by the likes of New York City's
Mayor Giuliani), a national photo database (a la Image Data and the NSA), and god knows what else. In my opinion, ANY time a uniquwly identifying key is proposed, especially for use in tracking information about PEOPLE, there better be a damned good reason for it.
Do you honestly think that artists are going to STOP signing with major companies like Sony because of this? I doubt it. If consumers stop blindly handing their money to Sony and company, this kind of leverage will fall by the wayside, presenting ample opportunity for someone else to start calling the shots (the artists themselves, for example).
Seriously - if web sites are rated on content, and since the Bible contains all manner of violence, sexual misbehavior and the like, it will undoubtedly be filtered. Unless of course, these templates allow for exceptions, like "Filter out all gratuitous violence, all sex, and anything deemed immoral. EXCEPTION: anything associated with Christianity or the Bible."
If I were Pat Robertson, I'd be hopping mad.
While not all countries are bound by the equivalent of the First Amendment, I find it difficult to believe that this won't somehow undermine this protection. The U.S. Supreme Court has rendered some very significant decisions, voter approval notwithstanding. And that's what makes it so valuable - it was designed to factor out the "will of the majority." It will be most interesting to see first, how far this effort actually goes, and seocnd, what happens when it is contested on constitutional grounds.
If record companies are ripping off the artists, it's OK for you to rip off the record companies (and by extension, the artists), right? If the price of a CD is more than you'd like to pay, this somehow justifies theft, right?
As long as people continue to pay the record companies in ANY form, they'll continue right on doing what they've done for decades. If you steal the music, then YOU'RE just as guilty of hurting the artists as the record companies. Just don't BUY it. This is the only way that the market will be allowed to correct this problem. What could be easier than NOT giving someone your money?
Bummer - Apple's web site does list the availability though - most of them are 30 days, while a couple of models are 60 days. Apple has a history of releasing products in a way that created perpetual shortages - which accomplished nothing but pissing a lot of people off. I'd rather wait 30 days while they ramp up production so that I could order a G4 with a high probability that it won't take just to the left of forever to get it.
ROFL!!!!!!! Well done!!!
As long as companies continue to prostitute personal information that belongs to their customers (to the monetary benefit of the company, no less), I have absolutely *NO* problem with making the purchase information of companies public. If anything, it evens the playing field.